Limits...
OnabotulinumtoxinA and AbobotulinumtoxinA Dose Conversion: A Systematic Literature Review

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Objective: This systematic review was performed to elucidate dosing practices, dosing conversions, and related outcomes from randomized, controlled trials that directly compared onabotulinumtoxinA (ONA) and abobotulinumtoxinA (ABO) at various dose conversion ratios for therapeutic use in movement disorders.

Methods: A systematic review of three medical literature databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE) was performed to identify relevant comparative clinical studies, systematic reviews, and meta‐analyses published in the English language between January 1991 and January 2015. Studies that met predefined inclusion criteria were selected for formal data extraction and quality assessment.

Results: A total of 182 manuscripts were identified, of which four were included for analysis. Targeted clinical applications included neurological disorders. The studies compared ONA to ABO dose conversion ratios of 1:2.5 (n = 1), 1:3 (n = 2), and 1:4 (n = 2). One study compared both 1:3 and 1:4 ratios. An ONA:ABO conversion factor of 1:2.5 was associated with similar efficacy and side effects. An ONA:ABO ratio of 1:3 provided similar or higher efficacy, but an increased rate of adverse effects, and an ONA:ABO ratio of 1:4 was associated with higher efficacy, but with an excessive rate of intolerable side effects.

Conclusion: A dose conversion ratio of ONA to ABO between 1:2.5 and 1:3.0 provides comparable safety and efficacy for therapeutic movement disorders chemodenervation procedures.

No MeSH data available.


PRISMA flow diagram reporting the results of the systematic literature search. Level 1 screening = review of titles and abstracts; Level 2 screening = review of full‐text articles; PRISMA = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses.
© Copyright Policy - creativeCommonsBy-nc-nd
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4836618&req=5

mdc312235-fig-0001: PRISMA flow diagram reporting the results of the systematic literature search. Level 1 screening = review of titles and abstracts; Level 2 screening = review of full‐text articles; PRISMA = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses.

Mentions: At level 1 screening, titles and abstracts identified from the electronic databases were reviewed by two researchers independently (K.D. and J.C.) to evaluate potential study relevance. All publications reporting preclinical, phase I, prognostic/biomarker, genetic retrospective, registry, case report, and/or noncomparative studies were excluded, as were letters, consensus reports, editorials, and nonsystematic reviews. At level 2 screening, full‐text studies selected at level 1 were reviewed with the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. In addition, bibliographical references of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses were searched to find relevant studies that may not have been identified during the primary search. At both screening levels, the authors met to reach consensus about any cases where there was initial disagreement or uncertainty about study inclusion. The overall study‐selection process is illustrated in Figure 1.


OnabotulinumtoxinA and AbobotulinumtoxinA Dose Conversion: A Systematic Literature Review
PRISMA flow diagram reporting the results of the systematic literature search. Level 1 screening = review of titles and abstracts; Level 2 screening = review of full‐text articles; PRISMA = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses.
© Copyright Policy - creativeCommonsBy-nc-nd
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4836618&req=5

mdc312235-fig-0001: PRISMA flow diagram reporting the results of the systematic literature search. Level 1 screening = review of titles and abstracts; Level 2 screening = review of full‐text articles; PRISMA = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses.
Mentions: At level 1 screening, titles and abstracts identified from the electronic databases were reviewed by two researchers independently (K.D. and J.C.) to evaluate potential study relevance. All publications reporting preclinical, phase I, prognostic/biomarker, genetic retrospective, registry, case report, and/or noncomparative studies were excluded, as were letters, consensus reports, editorials, and nonsystematic reviews. At level 2 screening, full‐text studies selected at level 1 were reviewed with the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. In addition, bibliographical references of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses were searched to find relevant studies that may not have been identified during the primary search. At both screening levels, the authors met to reach consensus about any cases where there was initial disagreement or uncertainty about study inclusion. The overall study‐selection process is illustrated in Figure 1.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Objective: This systematic review was performed to elucidate dosing practices, dosing conversions, and related outcomes from randomized, controlled trials that directly compared onabotulinumtoxinA (ONA) and abobotulinumtoxinA (ABO) at various dose conversion ratios for therapeutic use in movement disorders.

Methods: A systematic review of three medical literature databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE) was performed to identify relevant comparative clinical studies, systematic reviews, and meta‐analyses published in the English language between January 1991 and January 2015. Studies that met predefined inclusion criteria were selected for formal data extraction and quality assessment.

Results: A total of 182 manuscripts were identified, of which four were included for analysis. Targeted clinical applications included neurological disorders. The studies compared ONA to ABO dose conversion ratios of 1:2.5 (n = 1), 1:3 (n = 2), and 1:4 (n = 2). One study compared both 1:3 and 1:4 ratios. An ONA:ABO conversion factor of 1:2.5 was associated with similar efficacy and side effects. An ONA:ABO ratio of 1:3 provided similar or higher efficacy, but an increased rate of adverse effects, and an ONA:ABO ratio of 1:4 was associated with higher efficacy, but with an excessive rate of intolerable side effects.

Conclusion: A dose conversion ratio of ONA to ABO between 1:2.5 and 1:3.0 provides comparable safety and efficacy for therapeutic movement disorders chemodenervation procedures.

No MeSH data available.